Put Bradshaw as he was in the 70's into the league and he's probably Jake Locker. But put Bradshaw into a big time college program with a pro-style offense/etc. after passing camps from the time he's 8 yrs old and who knows.

Put Bradshaw as he was in the 70's into the league and he's probably Jake Locker. But put Bradshaw into a big time college program with a pro-style offense/etc. after passing camps from the time he's 8 yrs old and who knows.

Game is just way too different to make the comps in my mind.

With this, I agree.

Instead, the question can be: Does someone with Terry Bradshaw's production from those 1970's Steeler teams win 4 SB's today?

Put Bradshaw as he was in the 70's into the league and he's probably Jake Locker. But put Bradshaw into a big time college program with a pro-style offense/etc. after passing camps from the time he's 8 yrs old and who knows.

Game is just way too different to make the comps in my mind.

With this, I agree.

Instead, the question can be: Does someone with Terry Bradshaw's production from those 1970's Steeler teams win 4 SB's today?

If Trent Dilfer didn't win the Super Bowl that year Kerry Collins would have.Rex Grossman almost won it in 2007, Jake Delhomme should have won it in 20042003 Brad Johnson won it - with his offense - over Rich Gannonand that giant doofus Eli Manning has won two. I don't give a crap what anyone says, Eli sucks (not Weeden bad, but still)

In 2004 Childress was the OC and Shurmur was the QB coach on the Eagles' team that almost won it all.

What's the point? Anyone can win it at any time, even if an elite QB helps.

And who's to say Brady isn't elite just because of the Belichick system? Or Rapistberger because of how good the Steelers' system is?

LarsHancock wrote:If Trent Dilfer didn't win the Super Bowl that year Kerry Collins would have.Rex Grossman almost won it in 2007, Jake Delhomme should have won it in 20042003 Brad Johnson won it - with his offense - over Rich Gannonand that giant doofus Eli Manning has won two. I don't give a crap what anyone says, Eli sucks (not Weeden bad, but still)

In 2004 Childress was the OC and Shurmur was the QB coach on the Eagles' team that almost won it all.

What's the point? Anyone can win it at any time, even if an elite QB helps.

And who's to say Brady isn't elite just because of the Belichick system? Or Rapistberger because of how good the Steelers' system is?

Come on, no one buys that those guys are system successes. Especially when they've both been to Super Bowls with different OC's and systems.

The rules have changed in the last 10 years. You can't include QB's that won the SB in 2000 in this discussion any more than you can include Mark Rypien or Jeff Hostetler.

Also, Rex Grossman GOT to a SB, but they were no where near winning it.

Eli sucks? I simply don't know how to respond to that.

My point is that it is almost impossible to win a SB in this day and age without a dynamic, clutch QB. And all those teams I listed don't have one.

Just glancing at Bradshaw's career numbers I didn't realize he only has two more TD's than picks. I didn't really get to see him play, and don't remember much being single digits in age when football was on, but was he a guy that just had it in the moment? Was he clutch or just surrounded by an incredibly talented team or both? I have always assumed he had to make some clutch throws during that four Super Bowl run.

Yes, it's beyond stupid to give up on a QB because you think he's not elite, because the fact of the matter is, you don't know if he is or not.

We simply don't know. Any of those names listed above could wind up on a hot streak and make us all look like fools.

THAT is the real trend within the NFL. Which team can wind up with a hotstreak when it actually matters.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Ok, everybody, this was one game. One game means Jack and Shit in the NFL.

Weeds was bad. Real bad. Fine. I agree that the odds are he isn't going to win us a SB. Fine. But if you think the odds of that changed based on yesterday, you are dumb. I saw nothing yesterday that was new information. I saw a rookie being asked to do too much (check out the difference between our rush attempts and WASH's) and he didn't live up to the task. Fine. Luck, RGIII, and Newton are the only rookie QBs in the last 10+ years to look real good year 1. The only one of them to hit year 2 looks a lot worse.

This is my point. QB evaluation means nothing, repeat NOTHING, outside of playoff appearances. There is a reason that every single person here would take Eli over Matty-Ice, and it's playoff performance. Every other metric tells you to take Ryan. But we all know which QB to take.

Now, you need a QB who can get you to playoff appearances. Gotta make that tier. And it's nice to have a QB who can play in the regular season to a level that gives you some reason to expect playoff success. But you're nuts if you think that 1 rookie season on a losing team will answer ANY of those questions.

I think we've seen enough of Weeds to begin to put odds on his success. All I can say is that he hasn't shown "it" yet. I do think he has an NFL arm and, contrary to yesterday, I don't think he has a big INT problem. 14 INTs is not so many for a rookie. And we all agree that he has to deal with some of the worst playcalling in the league. I do think that all of his flaws are things that can be improved upon. He isn't like DA, where you just can't fix stupid, or Tebow, where you just can't make a HB into a QB. And he isn't McCoy, where he just doesn't have the physical characteristics for it.

I think we'll know a lot more about Weeds next year when he has an NFL season under his belt and an offseason to digest it, with the help of a better head coach. See if he can learn. And nothing I've seen tells me whether or not he can learn. I think we can't know until next year. And the same goes for Luck and RGIII. Let's see how they do next year too. Cam Newton is just such an interesting comparison.

Bottom line is that it isn't that hard to fine a playoff level QB. And there is absolutely no reason to think Weeds can't be that. And we can't know whether or not we have a SB level QB until we see him in the playoffs. Flacco, Ryan, Rivers, Eli, Roethlesberger, Alex Smith, and others all show how necessary playoff evaluation is in seeing what you have at QB.

So not only do we have to wait, given our dearth of options, but it's too early to cut bait anyway.

Oh hell, this is Cleveland, we'll hire Childress as our HC and fire Heckert and the whole franchise will be set back 6 years. We all know it.

Again, damn near 100 QB's have played in that game. Take out the Hall of Famers and guys playing at an MVP level that season, and what are you left with?

A handful.

Guys like Mark Rypien and Rich Gannon are in this thread as lower level QB's that have won it. Gannon was the league MVP and Rypien was in the middle of a run where he was at that level.

The Browns have had a snowballs chance twice in my lifetime. Once in 1980 with the MVP, and twice against the Broncos with a near MVP.

And, as alluded to, with the rules as they sit now, it's more paramount then ever.

So, the choice if you wanna win the thing is find that guy, or, you could try to put together such a dominant package in other areas you buck huge odds and win it that way. Always better to aim for the rule, rather than the exception.

How this is even a discussion - every GD year here, is beyond me. Hiko's point is accurate.

e0y2e3 wrote:Have people watched Cam over the last 7 weeks? Because dude's been brilliant.

Can't figure that guy out, cause from about week 6 last year to halfway thru this season I thought he was in big, big trouble cause he wasn't recognizing adjustments -especially at the line.

All of the sudden a switch flipped. And he's grown some balls downfield.

At the end of the day, I'm still not sure just how accurate he'll be from the pocket -cause make no mistake about it, in a few more years that's where he'll be doin' the bulk of his work. Same with RGIII. The NFL makes EVERYONE primarily a pocket passer in due time.

As both Lead and Hiko have pointed out, the rules, and just as importantly how they are enforced, have changed. Dramatically.

Here is one guy's opinion in 2008 on the tipping point

As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004. •One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory. •Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.

As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.

Until that January night in 2004, the Colts’ offense had seemed virtually unstoppable, a ballet in cleats set on fast-forward. They had scored 10 touchdowns in 17 postseason possessions. Their punter, Hunter Smith, had not punted in two playoff games. Almost everyone anticipated the title game would be a chess match, full of move-for-move encounters between Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Patriots Coach Bill Belichick.

Belichick, celebrated for his cerebral approach to football, took a cruder stance. He wanted a brawl and he instructed his players to hit the Colts’ receivers hard every chance they had. The strategy was called rerouting, and what it meant was that instead of Colts receivers going unimpeded to where Manning expected them to be, the Patriots rerouted them — shoving is a more precise term — until the timing of the pass patterns was so off that the plays were useless.

“This was probably the most simple game plan we had,” cornerback Ty Law, with the Patriots at the time and now with the Kansas City Chiefs, said after that game. “Just beat them up.”

Bill Polian’s face tightened when he recalled the game. Polian, the Colts’ president, was angered by how the Patriots played. No wonder. When it was over, when Marvin Harrison had been jostled out of the game plan, when the Patriots had intercepted Manning four times, the rest of the N.F.L. had its blueprint for stopping the Colts. The Colts also had their reputation for finesse play cemented, the Patriots were on their way to building a dynasty — they went on to win their second of three Super Bowls — and the National Football League had a rules issue on its hands.

“I give the Patriots great credit for what they did,” Polian said in an interview this week. “I won’t go beyond that.”

The National Football League eventually did, with Polian’s prodding. The following off-season, the league issued a point of emphasis edict from the competition committee about how defensive holding and illegal contact would be officiated. Since then, defenders have had to be more careful about touching receivers beyond the first 5 yards of a play.

Last edited by mattvan1 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

mattvan1 wrote:As both Lead and Hiko have pointed out, the rules, and just as importantly how they are enforced, have changed. Dramatically.

Here is one guy's opinion in 2008 on the tipping point

As if quarterbacks hadn't been coddled enough by coaches and rulemakers over the past two decades, one profound game, and one very angry team executive, made their lives even easier in 2004. •One, New England defenders pushed the bounds of pass interference rules in the 2003 AFC championship game, badly roughing up Indianapolis receivers and shutting down the Colts high-powered offense in a 24-14 Patriots victory. •Two, Indy's powerful president, Bill Polian, complained to the league rather loudly in the wake of his team's loss.

As a result, the NFL determined that its officials would "re-emphasize" pass interference rules in 2004 and beyond. Though not officially a rule change, the impact on the passing game was profound.

The very next season, Indy quarterback Peyton Manning went out and rewrote the record books, with 49 TD passes and a 121.1 passer rating that was nearly 10 points better than any that had come before it. The league-wide passer rating, meanwhile, jumped from 78.3 in 2003 to a record 82.8 in 2004.

The records have remained under assault since then: Tom Brady broke Manning's TD-toss record with 50 in 2007, while posting the second-highest passer rating in history (117.2). With less fanfare, Drew Brees set a record with 440 completions in 2007. And, as noted above, NFL quarterbacks are poised to rewrite the record books in countless categories here in 2008, while newcomers have bucked tradition by easily performing at high level.

But today's high-flying newcomers and record-setting veterans aren't better quarterbacks than players of the past. They just have advantages their predecessors never enjoyed back before the Golden Age of the passing game.

Did someone just say Brandon Weeden, while only having to look at half the field and his second progression always being the check down, is being asked to do too much? The guy that gets passes swatted down at the line on a per series basis, has too much on his plate?

Christ.

Then to act like the critiques only started showing up this morning, opposed to before the draft? That yesterday was further evidence, not exhibit 1A?

Can Brandon Weeden evolve into an "elite" QB? Sure. But the chances are damn slim. Most likely, the high end of what he can become is Flacco or Schaub.

Which I know a lot of people would take in a heartbeat.

But can you win a SB with a Flacco or Schaub? Sure. Flacco almost got there just last year. But the chances are damn slim. Everything has to go perfectly and your window of even getting to the game is small, much less winning it.

The Hasselbecks and Delhommes of the world - every bit as good as Flacco or Schaub (if not better) in their prime each got there once and even got close to winning it. But in the end, they both lost. And that was the entirety of their window.

Whereas we know that the elites could take their teams there year after year.

So, yeah, if Weeden improves and the team gets really solid and all the chips fall in the right spot at the right time, the Browns would have a slight chance of contending.

But that should in NO WAY keep the team from continually looking to upgrade the position.

Look at TEN, JAX, and MIN. All 3 of their QB's were 1st rounders last year. And all 3 of those teams should cut heir losses with those guys now instead of wasting a couple more years trying to "develop" something that just ain't there.

I get that sometimss you stick with a guy for lack of a better option, and that likely gives Weeden a chance to show he's one of those exceptions to the rule that makes a huge leap in their second year. But every single team on hhat list SHOULD be looking for improvements NOW.

But that should in NO WAY keep the team from continually looking to upgrade the position

I'd bet most fans feel the same way... the problem as I see it is an unacceptance by some to accept what we have till that other guy arrives and ridcule those who want to have a little joy in Browns Land till that time

The whole QB conversation issue has become unbearably boring and nothing more than a pissing contest for assuaging the egos of those who deem their takes more correct than others

Takes get 'read into',words get twisted, minor incorrections portayed as ignorance and every post is supposed to be the Final Answer when continuing agrument is really the goal...

...and thinking the Browns are somefuckinghow going to get that Premier QB and get to a SB within a possible 3 yr window because some other team did it once is just as preposterous as thinking Bradon Weeden can/can't develop into THAT GUY

When is the league going to realize that they are in danger of irreparably damaging the game if they don't reduce the dependency on stellar QB play? It's not simply that teams who are lucky enough to have "average" QB play still have little or no chance, it's the teams that are desperately mortgaging the future to try and find their guy are placing themselves at the bottom of the barrel year after year after year. See Browns, Cleveland.

The long term impact is starting to be felt by many teams who chase "elite" QBs and need to throw FA $$ and first round $$ at guys who end up holding clipboards after 2-3 years. The Jets are a great example of this - Sanchez dug his own grave last night, with a $17 mil or so cap hit in 2013. They are now completely FUBAR'd for a while. The Cardinals threw a bunch at Kolb and he cannot get near the field. The list goes on and on, as Chris pointed out above.

The next wave is the multi-threat guy who can get outside the pocket - the innovative guys like Shanny and Harbaugh see this - if you can't win the lotto and get an elite pocket QB then the next best thing is try to land an RGIII or Kapernick, as long as you have a competent back up so when the starter gets pulverized you can go to the second guy.

Baseball turned a blind eye to PEDs because "chicks dig the long ball" The NFL, in a mad dash for fantasy football points and the Madden generation of viewers, is completely destroying the competitive balance of the league.

And I don't think Goodell gives 2 shits about it.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Why would Goodell care? Fantasy Football and The Madden Generation let him print money.

The bottom dwelling piece of shit that is the Cleveland Browns just sold for a cool billion.

There is no better example of this country being populated by morons than the NFL's blind minions that allow it to continue down this path toward arena football. It's even worse than elections, because more people participate in worshipping the NFL blindly.

That's a pretty substantial 16 teams (Hiko's list had 21, and that's post expansion). In support of his argument, though-- as far as how the game has changed-- three guys not in the list above include the less than amazing Stan Humphries (Chargers), Neil O'Donnell (Steelers), and Mark Rypien (Skins), all of whom DID play in Super Bowls thanks to the exploits of their teammates.

e0y2e3 wrote:Why would Goodell care? Fantasy Football and The Madden Generation let him print money.

The bottom dwelling piece of shit that is the Cleveland Browns just sold for a cool billion.

There is no better example of this country being populated by morons than the NFL's blind minions that allow it to continue down this path toward arena football. It's even worse than elections, because more people participate in worshipping the NFL blindly.

He should care because over the long term a lack of competitive balance will diminish the brand, much more so than bounties, drunken driving fatalities, suicides, concussions, and drug suspensions; all of which seem to have little effect on viewership.

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

But that should in NO WAY keep the team from continually looking to upgrade the position

I'd bet most fans feel the same way... the problem as I see it is an unacceptance by some to accept what we have till that other guy arrives and ridcule those who want to have a little joy in Browns Land till that time

The whole QB conversation issue has become unbearably boring and nothing more than a pissing contest for assuaging the egos of those who deem their takes more correct than others

Takes get 'read into',words get twisted, minor incorrections portayed as ignorance and every post is supposed to be the Final Answer when continuing agrument is really the goal...

...and thinking the Browns are somefuckinghow going to get that Premier QB and get to a SB within a possible 3 yr window because some other team did it once is just as preposterous as thinking Bradon Weeden can/can't develop into THAT GUY

....and why isn't Carolina on that list?

Do you really believe Cam Newton is on the short list?

:smfh

Not right now. Does he have the chance to be? Sure.

Durable running threat with a good arm that is unstoppable when he's on. I'd take him in a heartbeat. 85% of Cam's best game > most QB's 100%.

As far as your other assertion, will the Browns be in the SB in he next 3 years? Doubtful. But the Skins and Colts were both as bad as the Browns, and there's a much better chance they'll be in the SB in 3 yrs than Weeden turning into Aaron Rodgers.

I just think it's so hard to try and judge a talent on how he'll be at QB in the NFL. Kind of reminds me of the beginning of Moneyball where- you can see a guy's performance on the field clear as day, but it's nearly impossible to gauge what's really going on between the ears.

What Colin Kaepernick and the 9ers are doing right now is just bat-shit crazy to me.

And for this Browns team, I think that since there aren't too many viable candidates at QB this offseason, the next best place to start will be HC, since I don't think we even know what we've got at QB because SHUR is in charge.

LakeErieWarriors wrote:I just think it's so hard to try and judge a talent on how he'll be at QB in the NFL. Kind of reminds me of the beginning of Moneyball where- you can see a guy's performance on the field clear as day, but it's nearly impossible to gauge what's really going on between the ears.

What Colin Kaepernick and the 9ers are doing right now is just bat-shit crazy to me.

As said before, Drew Brees was not Drew Brees until about 3-4 years into his career, and was so bad it led to the Chargers drafting Rivers

Eli Manning routinely disappointed people in New York and it took until the 2007 playoffs for the light to go off.

Aaron Rodgers when he made his first career start when Farve went down had people questioning whether he was a waste of a pick.

Oh, and Mark Sanchez? His first two years he was one game away from a Super Bowl. Wrap your head around that.

We don't know. No one does.

Give the guy some time. If he sucks next year under a new offense better suited to his skils and starts to backslide into Brady/DA territory, than we can begin to have the conversation of bailing on the guy. Until then? Buckle up, and lets see where this team goes.

Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.

Drew Brees was also good enough in his last year in SD that he was THE prime Free Agent of that season until he got hurt in the last game. And a lot of why Eli got so much flak was from not being his brother right off the bat rather than showing no potential.

But I see your point.

I guess my only counter is that a majority of QB's that start off bad stay bad, and you only bother putting your faith in a bad QB if you've seen glimpses that tell you the potential is there.

I'd feel a lot better about Weeden's potential if he hadn't gotten WORSE as the year went on. Generally, that's a bad sign. Means that Defenses have figured out what you do well and taken it away and you can't adjust. It's what killed DA, and, to a lesser extent, Colt (he had less potential to begin with).

If I'm a GM, I talk that guy up since I don't have a better option while actively seeking his replacement in case he does what the odds are that QB's like him do and not get much better than he already is.

Regardless, dude gets next year and a new coach, so we should have the question irrevocably answered after that.

Course, there are still 1000's of Colt Boys out there, so I guess there's always someone that will stare at the sun and call it the moon no matter what.

Eli doesn't suck, but he's been very good with one of the best supporting casts one through forty-five. Eli / Roethlisburger are the minimum you should be looking at.

Between Weeds' "broken helmet", the subsequent 67 yard bomb, and T-Rich going off on Shurmur post-game, I can't write him off from there just yet. Not until we get someone with the offensive game plan who isn't getting outsmarted by his own flippin' QB and RB.

"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT